lesser GPL restrictions

Karsten M. Self kmself at ix.netcom.com
Thu Nov 8 07:55:23 UTC 2001

on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:17:59PM -0800, David Johnson (david at usermode.org) wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2001 10:29 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
> > > in either case, open-source is caused no harm.
> >
> > So if Microsoft takes some cool parts of Linux and incorporates it in
> > Windows (assuming for a second that it's legally possible), you would be OK
> > with it?
> First of all, it IS legal for Microsoft to do that. They just have to
> follow the license if they do :-) But if they didn't follow the
> license, I would NOT be okay with it.

Let's take this out of the realm of the hypothetical.

Microsoft includes a number of GNU utilities (gcc among them) in the
Interix / Unix Services for Windows NT product.  I've been involved in
efforts to ensure that distribution terms are GPL complaint.  Microsoft
(specifically Doug Miller, now an apologist for MSFT strategy) was
rather prompt to comply with terms.

I've no problem with Microsoft advancing free software by way of the
GPL.  None whatsoever.


Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011107/cb623bd8/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list